Saturday, February 12, 2011

Michael Corleone: Just when I thought I was out.... they pull me back in. -The Godfather III

I really wanted to write a column about why I am opposed to my former governor Mike Huckabee being a Republican presidential candidate in 2012, but I've had a busy week this week and I don't have as much research as I would like to have on the subject. So I've had to cast around for another subject to write about, and was really despairing for a subject matter.

And then, manna drops from Heaven.

Gene Lyons is a liberal newspaper columnist (that's not redundant, by the way) who I have fisked on a near-weekly basis for the past several years. As I explained in my last post, I have gotten away from doing fiskings.

Just when I thought I was out....

I felt the need to address this because it concerns one of my personal heroes in Ronald Reagan, and one of our side's most prolific thinkers in Rush Limbaugh. So, with no further ado....

A fitting celebrationBy Gene LyonsThursday, February 10, 2011LITTLE ROCK — Nothing better symbolized Ronald Reagan’s 100th birthday celebration than that it should fall on Super Bowl Sunday, with Air Force jets roaring unseen over a hermetically sealed stadium, almost but not quite drowning out a tarted-up former Mouseketeer who mangled the lyrics of “The Star Spangled Banner.”

It was all there: the bombast, the grandiose self-congratulation, the willful blindness, the elevation of showbiz spectacle to patriotic rite.

The Democrats held a convention? Why wasn't I notified?

After which, thankfully, a pretty good NFL football game broke out.

It’s for pseudo-events like the Super Bowl, I believe, that a merciful God gave us high-def DVRs.

This is what passes for humor in Gene's columns. In other words, this is the funniest that Gene (intentionally) gets.

How fitting that George W. Bush, the late president’s vicar on Earth, was seated in a front-row celebrity box to witness the spectacle. Reagan’s genius as a politician was that he repackaged and sold to millions of Americans the comforting daydreams of the 1950s. Not the Fifties as they were-no Korean War, no Army-McCarthy hearings, no lynchings-but as depicted in TV sitcoms like “Ozzie and Harriet” and “Leave it to Beaver.”

Playing the president, Reagan essentially recapitulated the Robert Young role in “Father Knows Best”- firm but fair and unfailingly optimistic. True, Reagan had a disconcerting habit of conflating film scripts with reality: talking feelingly, for example, of his experiences liberating Nazi death camps at the end of World War II, which never happened.

Capt. Reagan of the 1st Motion Picture Unit served in California for the duration of the war, but he got away with exaggerating, biographer Edmund Morris believes, because he’d spent weeks editing raw film footage from Buchenwald. His emotional reaction was sincere.

To an America still nursing a Woodstock, Kent State, Vietnam and Watergate hangover, Reagan’s performance was reassuring. Although his personal coolness was notorious-aides wondered if he knew their names, and even his children complained that he treated them like strangers-the character he played in the Oval Office was hard to dislike.

Here's an interesting link in which Reagan's authorized biographer touches on these two subjects. Look especially under Myth numbers 2 and 3 here.

That’s not to say that Reagan did no harm. Bush’s epic failures came about largely because, unlike Reagan, whose fealty to right-wing ideology was at best inconsistent, he put dogmatic Reaganism into action; hence, the tea party, an other-worldly faction greatly reminiscent of daffy Sixties leftists who argued that Marxism hadn’t really failed because true communism had never been tried.

I'm... I'm at a complete loss. I think Gene is comparing the Tea Partiers to Communists.

Yes, really.

Consider a telling exchange on-where else?-Rush Limbaugh’s program last week. Presumably by decoying Limbaugh’s screeners, whose job it is to prevent the host from being confronted by anybody who knows what he or she is talking about, liberal blogger Mike Stark got through.

Stark said that he couldn’t understand why conservatives idolize Reagan. He listed his reasons: “Instead of privatizing Social Security, he raised taxes. We’re all paying higher taxes today out of our paychecks every single week because he decided to save Social Security.”

Talking over Limbaugh’s constant interruptions, Stark continued: “The Greenspan commission. He signed it into law and it raised taxes on Social Security.”

“I’m talking about Reagan. Reagan did that. He raised taxes on Social Security. He negotiated with terrorists, sending, over and over again, arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. . . .”

That would be the Iran-Contra scandal that I think probably would have ended in Reagan’s impeachment had he been a Democrat.

Let me pause here for just a second and give you a bit of background on Gene. He and Joe Conanson wrote a book asserting that President Clinton had been “hunted” by reporters in search of a scandal. It is Gene's position that the Clintons were unfairly persecuted while a feeding frenzy invented Whitewater, which ultimately resulted in President Clinton's near-impeachment.

Yes, really.

Stark went on: Reagan (humanely) gave amnesty to millions of undocumented aliens. When terrorists bombed U.S. Marine headquarters in Beirut, killing 283 Americans, he (wisely) pulled out of Lebanon’s civil war.

“He’s a tax-raiser, an amnesty-giver, a cut-and-runner, and he negotiated with terrorists,” Stark said. “Why is he a hero to conservatives?”

Limbaugh was beside himself, responding: “Where did you get this silly notion that Reagan raised taxes on Social Security? What websites do you read? Where did you pick that up?”

He’s right. payroll taxes increased in 1983 under Reagan. History records that, alarmed by spiraling deficits, he signed tax increases during six of his eight years in office. Even so, his administration tripled the national debt to almost $3 trillion.

Consistent with the GOP’s faith based war on arithmetic, his acolyte, Dubya, then redoubled the debt to $10.4 trillion, leaving a $1.4 trillion yearly deficit.

Note to the tea party: Had Clinton’s tax policies remained in place since 2001, the national debt that GOP politicians pretend to agonize over would no longer exist

.

So, Dubya doubled the national debt of $3 trillion to $10.4 trillion... Hey, wait a minute! Doubling $3 trillion gets us $6 trillion, not $10.4 trillion! I don't know what kind of calculator Gene is using, but he needs to return it and get one that works!

Oh, wait a minute! Half of $10.4 trillion is $5.2 trillion, which came from the administration before Dubya. Hmmm, if only I could remember what administration that is? It's apparently a mystery administration, because my record books tell me that the administration before Dubya was Clinton.

But in order for Gene to be right about Dubya doubling the debt, Clinton would have to left a debt for Dubya to double. But if Clinton left a $5.2 trillion debt, then he must have increased the debt that Reagan left. Because the last time I checked, going from $3 trillion to $5.2 trillion is an increase.

And Gene just finished telling us that had Clinton's policies remained in effect, the debt would have been erased.

Something doesn't add up here!

But Stark never got that far because Limbaugh hit the mute button, then delivered a lengthy soliloquy about how liberals can’t be reasoned with, only defeated. Is there a bigger faker in American life?

Well, let's sum up the whole exchange here. A liberal blogger lies to a conservative talker's call screeners in order to get on the air, makes a few assertions that are somewhat questionable, and he's hailed by liberals. Meanwhile, the conservative talker is called a “faker” because he isn't able to immediately nuke these questionable assertions.

Let's reverse the positions and see what we have, shall we? A conservative blogger lies to a liberal talker's call screeners and makes some questionable assertions before the liberal talker mutes the conservative blogger and rambles on about defeating the opposition instead of reasoning with them. Is there any doubt about what would happen?

Such an exchange would be newsworthy for two reasons. The first reason is that a conservative would need to lie to get anywhere. The outrage that would follow! A conservative! Lying! Just to make a point! The outrage!

The second reason it would be noteworthy is because of the news that there is a liberal talker. Who knew?

But now? A liberal lies to get on a conservative's program, and liberals just shrug their shoulders and yawn. How often does that have to happen before you get so blasé about it?

Let's face it; if you are a liberal and you have to lie to get on Limbaugh’s program, you are pretty much sunk. It is well known that liberals used to be shuffled to the front of the line whenever they called in. It's something that Limbaugh has pointed out many times. I believe that Limbaugh has moved away from this policy in recent years, though, because of how many times liberals have lied in order to get on the air.

Look, I researched a few of these assertions and have a few links that would clarify why I say that Stark makes “questionable assertions”. But let's face it; Stark has some credibility problems. If he lied then, what makes any of his assertions anything other than questionable at best? Why should we believe anything he says if he has to lie to get on the air?

So, I ask the question that Gene asks, “Is there a bigger faker in American life?” And I'll answer, “If you have to lie to get onto a program that puts liberals at the front of the line, then you may be on the short end of the credibility stick.”

“Ronald Reagan,” ruefully observed Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., “would have a hard time getting elected as a Republican today.”

There’s no doubt about it.

I'm not real sure what the profanity guidelines are here on Pundit Press, but if this breaks any, I'll be glad to alter it.

But my reaction to this sentence is: Horseshit. Reagan didn't work through the Republican Party, but instead communicated directly with the people. He forged a bond with not only conservatives in the Republican Party, but in the Democratic Party, as well. Or have we forgotten the term “Reagan Democrats”? The Reagan Democrats didn't vote for Reagan because he was a moderate. They voted for him because he was able to communicate to them and brought them to conservatism.

Pundit Press is proud to present its 22nd interview in our ongoing series. Today we're interviewing Mike, the founder of That Mr. G Guy's Blog. Make sure to head over there and check out the site!

1. When/why did you start That Mr. G Guy's Blog?

I started My blog around the middle of April,2010. Prior to that, I had been a guest commentator at Smash Mouth Politics. The proprietor of SMP, "John Doe" told me how easy it was to start my own blog and suggested I do so. I still post at SMP occasionally. I'm not a professional journalist, but have been interested in writing for years and thought this would be a good way to get my foot in the door.

2. What is your favorite part of running your site?

The ability to give my own take on the issues of the day and the interaction with the readers, plus the give and take of a spirited debate. Since my blog is still small, I don't have the problems with ad hominem attacks that are prevalent on larger blogs.

3. What is your favorite topic to write about?

Probably Economics, although I'll write about almost anything. I also like to try my hand occasionally at writing a little fiction or relate a story about the goings on around my little part of the world. I'm not an Economist, but with over half a century under my belt and having been out in the "real world", I believe I can give a layman's perspective to the Economic problems we're faced with today.

4. Has President Obama been better or worse than expected?

President Obama has been a little worse than I expected. I knew he was pretty far to the left, but didn't realize how far left until he got his massive "de-stimulus" bill passed and the ramming of the ill advised health care reform bill down our throats even though all the polls showed that a majority of Americans were against it. He has no concept of what the Constitution means or else he knows, but ignores it. His knowledge of foreign policy is non existent. In my opinion, he has surpassed Jimmy Carter as the worst President ever.

5. Any favorites for 2012 yet?

No one that has actually threw their hat in the ring impresses me. We can't throw the same old retreads up against Obama and expect to win. My candidate would be Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina if he changes his mind about running. My previous choice would have been Governor Mark Sanford, also from South Carolina until he made his big moral mistake. If I had to vote for someone other than my choice, it would probably be Sarah Palin.

6. What frustrates you the most about liberals?

Everything! Seriously, what frustrates me the most about Liberals is the fact that if there's a problem or crisis, their first inclination is to let government fix it. Their second inclination is to let government fix it. Liberals will always opt for a government solution over a free market solution. And you can't have a sensible discussion with a liberal. Even when the facts are stacked against them, you're always wrong and they're always right.

7. Anything else you'd like to add?

Just that I've been reading you blog for a long time now and appreciate the effort you and the other writers put into your articles. I also appreciate the interview. Here's hoping we can gain the House, Senate and Presidency in 2012.

Now that President George W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld have released their memoirs, many are wondering when Vice-President Richard Cheney will release his own account of decades in Washington as a Congressman from rural Wyoming* for 10 years, as George H.W. Bush's Secretary of Defense in the early 1990's and as Vice-President of the United States in the 2000's.

Not long at all.

According to the Amazon.com listing of In My Time: A Personal and Political Memoir by Dick Cheney: the memoir will be released in bookstores nationwide on August 30th, 2011. The volume will total 544 pages, which is 32 longer than Bush's Decision Points, but almost 300 shorter than Donald Rumsfeld's Known and Unknown. The Bush Administration definitely knows how to write a book!

The cover had not been finalized as of today, which is unsurprising because we would have seen it one million times in the media if it had been. I definitely will be purchasing Vice-President Cheney's memoir in August.

Remember, the Muslim Brotherhood claims that it is a moderate Islamic political affiliation. And yet, even when they try to put on their best face, their bias and lies shine through.

In their article MB (Muslim Brotherhood) Blamed for Ongoing Trouble in the Region, the Brotherhood's propaganda website went quickly on the attack. Their first paragraph claimed that the "right-winged" in the United States and Israel could only make "knee-jerked" judgements. The second paragraph, in its entirety, was this:

Such conclusions come in the wake of the inability of the right-winged US and Israel to see the MB as a peaceful, pro-democratic group, seeking a civil society and voicing the will of the Egyptian people.

But I guess the MB, as they short-hand it, has a point. How could a group with a logo of two scimitars crossed be anything but peaceful:

And how could a group responsible for the assassination of a Prime Minister of Egypt be seeking but acivil society and non-violence?

Facetiousness aside, one sentence in the MB's article should send shivers down people's spines:

As the MB continues in its firm stance against Al-Qaida-like terrorism, its much-needed moderate voice in the Islamic world is undermined by right-winged US and Israeli suspicions.

Read it again. The sentence states, the Muslim Brotherhood is against "Al-Qaida-like terrorism." Why the specification? Why not just say they are against terrorism in its entirety? The answer is clear.

On the bright side, the Muslim Brotherhood finishes off its article, telling those who can see through their lies that, in fact, anything to the contrast of what they say is ridiculous:

Suspicions that the MB is a pro-Iranian extremist group, anarchists and seeking to deprive Christians of their basic rights, are simply ludicrous.

Friday, February 11, 2011

First question: if a Republican in Maine says, "Andrew, why should I support you instead of Olympia Snow in the 2012 primary?" -- what would you tell him?

I would tell him that Olympia has been there too long. She routinely votes against the Republican Party line and that roughly speaking, she thinks she runs the place and, in fact, she is not a Republican and she makes basically more Democrats happy than she does Republicans.

I mean, I've been trolling through and found all these wonderful quotes from Democrats saying she's a great asset, and they love working with her, and she's the only sane Republican and everything else. And if you look at her voting record, it's not Republican. There is just no other way of putting it. The Democrats have voted with the Republicans more than she does.

Now the counter argument to that, one that you're going to hear over and over again, is that Maine is a left-of-center state and if someone like Olympia Snowe can get re-elected there, then there is no chance you can get elected. What do you say to that argument?

Well, first of all, the governor and both Houses in this state are now Republican. Secondly, there are people trying to portray me as a far right Republican when, on social issues, I'm fairly Libertarian. I'm not socially liberal; I'm socially Libertarian. The difference between the two is social liberals think you should be able to do everything you want and the state will pay for it. I believe that the state needs to meddle in personal behavior far less than it's doing now and that we should allow individuals to make personal choices; however, we need to implore people to take personal responsibility as well.

Things like socialized medicine and federal funding of abortion and all those other things are the exact opposite of what governments should be doing. Governments should not be meddling in people's lives, not telling them how much salt they should have, what they eat, what they drink, what they stick in their bodies. However, the deal they make with the individual is that you need to take personal responsibility for your life. We're not here to catch you if you become an addict like Charlie Sheen -- obviously he's an extreme version.

Now, as you mentioned, you're a Libertarian and you recently co-wrote a letter with GoProud urging Congress to, and I quote, "to resist the urge to run down any social issue rabbit-holes in order to appease the special interests." So in other words, in the primary neither you or Snow are really offering much to social conservatives, right? It's pretty much a lateral move between the two of you?

Well, in looking at her record she seems to be more socially liberal than a Libertarian in that she supports government meddling and/or helping to facilitate certain behaviors in individuals -- and there is a huge difference between the two. I put every single issue through a fiscal conservative filter. She doesn't. There is a huge difference between those two facts.

And, in fact, there are a lot of issues I agree with social conservatives on, but not from a religious point of view but from a fiscal conservative, limited government constitutionality point of view. I mean and unfortunately they need to realize that just because I don't come to the conclusion the same way they get there doesn't necessarily mean that I'm bad. Surely it's a good thing for people to come to the same conclusion, however they happen to get there.

Now you haven't been elected to office before...

I haven't. I'm a true outsider...

Yes, well, I was going to say, so give people an idea of what you'd be like. Can you note a politician or two, who you'd probably be most like, if you were elected?

Well, it's kind of early to ask with the 2010 influx, but I mean there are people who have been saying, which I thought was particularly flattering, that I'm almost a Goldwater type of Republican -- which I thought was interesting. Other people suggested Chris Christie, obviously lighter, Rand Paul, that sort of thing.

Yes, now one line of criticism I've already seen pop up against you was that you spent a great deal of time in England and let me quote you from a post you wrote back in 2007. "I may come from a different perspective as I am not English or even British. I'm American. I am an American who has probably spent more of his life being exposed to English and Englishness than ever I have been to Americans. This was especially true of my school years. Consequently as soon as I was an adult I'm endeavored to spend as much time in England as possible."

I'm guessing that the line of attack they're going to take is, "This guy is a want-to-be Brit. He's not a hometown Maine guy." What do you say to that?

I felt that in order to fully understand the socialist trend this country was heading on -- I wrote in my book Statism Sucks! that the left is going to be pushing for socialized medicine and they're going to be pushing for this and they're going to be pushing for that and people read it and went, "Nah. you are painting the Democrats as socialists." And I said, "but they are." I met Democrats in London who are attending socialist events. I consider Obama a social Democrat and people like Huckabee and some of the other Republicans are more like Christian Democrats in the European sense. If you look at the history of some of the Western nations in Europe, there is a direct path. Obama and his fellow socialists in the Democrat Party want to turn the U.S. into a European style social democracy.

I remember discussing this at the University of Maine and saying, "Well, wait a second, all the socialists have now turned into environmentalists, but their rhetoric hasn't changed. They still want to stop capitalism." What does all this environmental legislation do? A lot of it, it hurts the capitalist system. They can't attack it from normal ways; so what they do is via a regulation, via the EPA, is they limit the behavior of a company and achieve their goal of hurting the capitalist system.

So, having been exposed to the socialist movement in its purest form and social democracy, I would say better placed than many others to understand it and to counter it.

Last question, Andrew; Let's say you were elected to the Senate and could get anything you want passed. Give people an idea of your priorities. Pick three laws you'd most like to see passed -- and I realize these could change once you get to office.

Well, the first thing I'd do is get rid of the FCC because I think it's completely outdated. I think we should pass a law to completely restructure the EPA, probably get rid of the Department of Education, too. My priorities would be fiscal in nature obviously.

And by the way, let me note one point about Snow's attack on civil liberties. She and Rockefeller first proposed the Internet kill switch. That's similar to what was used by the Egyptians. She supports this. It's a fundamental affront to our liberties online.

Secondly, Snowe voted Obamacare out of committee. She was the first Republican to vote for Obamacare. That needs to be said. It's, "Oh, she didn't vote for it on the floor." These are fundamental affronts to our personal liberty and for any Republican to have voted that out of committee, in the form that it was and it became -- it's just mind-boggling. Even if the Supreme Court overturns it and completely throws it away, that whole process was launched by Olympia Snowe voting it out of committee.

In 1798, a mere ten years after the ratification of the Constitution war with France seemed imminent.In reaction to opposition regarding the policies of the government John Adams, hero of the Revolution, co–author of the Declaration of Independence, one of the Framers of the Constitution, and only the second President of the United States Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Congress eventually passed four of these laws in an effort to strengthen the Federal government against internal dissent.The former supporters of the Constitution, now known as Federalists sponsored the legislation meant to silence political opposition which was coming mainly from the Democratic Republicans and their leader Thomas Jefferson.

First Congress passed the Naturalization Act which required people to be residents of the United States for fourteen years instead of five years before becoming eligible for U.S. citizenship.

Then they passed the Alien Act which authorized the President to deport aliens who the government determined to be dangerous or a threat to the peace and/or safety of the United States.It must be remembered that while many believed America was under a threat of war this law was passed and enforced during peacetime.

Seeking to extend the power of the central government even further Congress next passed the Alien Enemies Act.This third act allowed the arrest, imprisonment, and deportation of aliens who were from to an enemy country.

Finally Congress added the Sedition Act, aimed at any action deemed by the government to be treason.This included the publication of any material judged to be false, scandalous, or malicious.No matter what the Bill of Rights said the government declared these activities to be a severe misdemeanor that was punishable by both fine and imprisonment.

Under these bills twenty-five men, including numerous editors of newspapers, were arrested.In addition, their newspapers were shut down.

The net of suspicion was spread so far that it included Benjamin Franklin Bache, Benjamin Franklin's grandson who was the editor of a Philadelphia newspaper.He was charged with libeling President Adams.This arrest elicited a mounting public reaction against all four of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Many Americans questioned the constitutionality of these laws. Indeed, public opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts was so great that they were in part responsible for the election of Thomas Jefferson, a Republican, to the presidency in 1800. Once in office, Jefferson pardoned all those convicted under the Sedition Act, while Congress restored all fines paid with interest.

The unpopularity and questionable legality of these acts led to Adams being the first one-term president.And these actions by one of the foremost Framers and most vocal supporters during the ratification process used these oppressive laws to silence opposition.Here at the very beginning of the Constitutional republic one of the architects of the document believed it gave him and Congress the power to silence the people when the people disagreed.

Jefferson and his Democratic Republicans defeated Adams’ bid for a second term by capitalizing on the public’s disgust at what were perceived to be unconstitutional and repressive actions by the very people who wrote and led the fight for the adoption of the constitution.Now those who portrayed themselves as the protectors of liberty would make sure that the limits placed upon the Federal Government were strictly observed.

In 1803, during their long wars with England and in need of financial relief France offered to sell Louisiana to the United States.This caused a novel situation and became the cause of a grave constitutional question and a major problem for President Thomas Jefferson and his ruling party.Seeing the opportunity to double the size of the United States, President Jefferson immediately wanted to purchase the territory.

This was rather surprising in that Jefferson advocated a narrow or strict interpretation of the Constitution.And no matter how you read the document nowhere in it does it authorize the President or even the Congress to buy additional territory.Not debating this point, not disputing this limitation but at the same time feeling the need to act quickly, and believing there was not time for the amendment process to legally change the Constitution.

This being the case, President Jefferson and his Democratic-Republicans merely passed legislation giving the President permission to sign a treaty obligating the United States to pay the money and to take possession of Louisiana.In addition, the Democratic-Republicans also appropriated the money to pay France for the territory.Where did Democratic-Republicans in Congress believe they acquired the authority to do this?They claimed to act under the provision of the Constitution (Article 5, Section 3) which gave Congress the power to regulate the territories.

The third President and a compliant Congress interpreted the Constitution to do what they wanted to do even though it violated their own previously stated position.

As a third and final example of how soon the limited government promised by the Framers of the constitution began to encroach upon the liberty it was meant to preserve let us look at the Monroe Doctrine.

During the presidency of James Monroe’s there occurred several revolutions against Spanish rule in South and Central America. The United States quickly recognized these newly established countries.Believing there was a strong possibility that European governments would intervene and try to reassert their control over the former colonies; President Monroe declared the doctrine in 1823. This doctrine declared that from that time forward America saw itself as the dominant power in the Western Hemisphere.It also warned that European interference in the Americas would not be allowed.The Doctrine consists of three principles:

1.The United States would remain neutral in European wars unless American interests were involved

2.Both North and South America were no longer subject to colonization by European powers.

3.The United States would consider any and all attempt at European colonization in the New World as an “unfriendly act.”

And although the United States did not have the military power to enforce these claims, the declaration had symbolic importance: announcing the United States’ posture as the power to be reckoned with in the New World.

Monroe’s Doctrine aggressively asserted the position of dominance claimed by the United States in the Americas, and it has been a cornerstone of American foreign policy ever since.

An interesting point that is little mentioned or considered is that this doctrine (and every doctrine proclaimed since) is not law but merely a declaration of a presidential policy.It is this fact that persuaded Monroe that as President he was authorized without any Constitutional authorization, to establish a foreign policy that commits the United States to military action without a declaration of war by Congress.Thus following in the footsteps of the second and the third our fifth president moved well beyond the limits the Constitution had imposed.

How long did the limits last?The Anti-Federalists were still active in politics as the warnings they gave were realized and the children of the Revolution took their first steps down the road to tyranny.These earliest assaults upon limits were followed by:

Jackson used the spoils system to pack the federal bureaucracy with his supporters.Jackson advocated the removal of all Native Americans across the Mississippi in violation of numerous treaties passing the Indian Removal Act.When the Supreme Court ruled that Georgia’s expropriation and removal of the Cherokee was unconstitutional, referring to the Chief Justice Jackson said, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”He then used the standing army the anti-federalists had warned against to complete the deportation acting as ruthlessly and as arrogantly as any Babylonian king.Lincoln decided that States which had voluntarily joined could not leave though this is stated nowhere in the Constitution.

Teddy Roosevelt ran rough shod over Latin America with his gunboat diplomacy.He provoked a revolution in Columbia, established Panama as a near colony, seized the Canal Zone, and in many ways used his big stick like a cudgel to establish and maintain an American Empire from Asia to the Dominican Republic in contravention to the advice of Washington and the words of the Constitution.

Wilson rounded up and interred Italians and Germans during WWI, took over mines and factories, fixed prices, took over the transportation and communications networks, and strictly managed the production and distribution of food.

FDR stretched the Constitution in so many ways it never snapped back.Since our first President for life established the bloated federal bureaucracy and its symbiotic military-industrial complex we have seen a succession of undeclared wars for peace, the welfare state, the Patriot Act, and preemptive war become emblems of a system that practice government of Washington, by Washington, and for Washington.

Congress has declared war on only five occasions: the War of 1812; the Mexican War; the Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II.However, this has not been the extent of our involvement in armed conflict.When American citizens have challenged the constitutionality of these wars without a declaration Federal Courts have ruled a declaration is not required.

Ask yourself: How long did the limits last?Where did the limits go?How many limits are left?Which leads to the ultimate question: How can we get the limits back?Keep the faith.Keep the peace.We shall overcome.

What Egyptians Really Want? It's a good question, particularly given the events of the recent weeks, culminating in the removal of Hosni Mubarak as president. There has been much speculation regarding the role of The Muslim Brotherhood in shaping the political future this country, but most of this is western speculation. The question remains though, what do Egyptians want for themselves? Last year the Pew Research Center conducted a poll that might surprise you and, if truth be told, scares the feces out of me.

~ 49% of Egyptians say Islam plays only a "small role" in public affairs under President Hosni Mubarak, while 95% prefer the religion play a "large role in politics."

~ 84% favor the death penalty for people who leave the Muslim faith.

~ 82% support stoning adulterers.

~ 77% think thieves should have their hands cut off.

~ 54% support a law segregating women from men in the workplace.

~ 54% believe suicide bombings that kill civilians can be justified.

~ Nearly half support the terrorist group Hamas.

~ 30% have a favorable opinion of Hezbollah.

~ 20% maintain positive views of al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden.

~ 82% of Egyptians dislike the U.S. — the highest unfavorable rating among the 18 Muslim nations Pew surveyed.

Obviously these are not encouraging figures. Recently, I commented on the documentary "Iranium". The parallels noted regarding Iran in the 1970's and Egypt today was stark and does not bode well for the greater middle east, Israel, or the United States. I still am cautiously optimistic that Egypt will come out of the current crisis better that they were, but find myself exceedingly cautious.

Out-going Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is giving his last press conference as Press Secretary today. At the moment, however, President Obama is speaking, telling a story about Gibbs and his time with him. You can watch it here:

Speaking on the stepping-down of Hosni Mubarak earlier today, President Obama gave a speech today about the situation in Egypt. In the speech, which began at 3:05pm, the President showed support for the actions of democracy-supporting protesters. Here are some lines of the President's speech. Once the full transcript is released, Pundit Press will have it:

"Egypt will never be the same..."
"There will be difficult days ahead..."
"The people of Egypt can find the answers..."
"Egyptians have made it clear that nothing less than genuine democracy will carry the day..."
"The United States will continue to be a friend and partner of Egypt..."
"Above all, we saw a new generation emerge..."
"This is the power of human dignity..."
"Egyptians have inspired us..."
"The entire world has taken note..."
"The American people are moved by these scenes in Cairo..."
Egyptians have "changed the world."

President Obama

Update: Here is a rough transcript of the entire speech:

There are very few moments in our lives where we have the privilege to witness history taking place this is one of those moments this is one of those times. the people of Egypt have spoken their voices have been heard and Egypt will never be the same. by stepping down, President Mubarak responded to the Egyptian peoples hunger for change. But this is not the end of the transition, its the beginning. I’m sure there will be many difficult days ahead and many questions remain unanswered. But I am confident that the people of Egypt can find the answers, and do so peacefully, constructively and in the spirit of unity that has defined these last few weeks. For Egyptians have made it clear that nothing less than genuine democracy will carry the day.

The military has served patriotically and responsibly as a caretaker to the state and will now have to ensure a transition that is credible in the eyes of the Egyptian people. That means protecting the rights of Egypt;s citizens, lifting the emergency law, revising the constitution and other laws to make this change irreversible. And laying out a clear path to elections that are fair and free. Above all, this transition must bring all of Egypt’s voices to the table, with spirit of peaceful protest and perseverance that the Egyptian people have shown can serve as a powerful wind at the back of this change.

The United States will continue to be a friend and partner to Egypt. We stand ready to provide whatever assistance is necessary and asked for to pursue a credible transition to a democracy. I’m also confident that the same ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit that the young people of Egypt have shown in recent days can be harnessed to create new opportunity, jobs, and businesses that allow the extraordinary potential of this generation to take flight. And I know that a democratic Egypt can advance its role of responsible leadership not only in the region but around the world.

Egypt has played a pivotal role in human history for over 6,000 years, but over the last few weeks the wheel of history turned at a blinding pace, as Egyptian people demanded their universal rights. We saw mothers and fathers carrying their children on their shoulders to show them what true freedom what might look like. We saw a young Egyptian for the first time in my life I really count, my voice is heard. Even though I am only one person this is the way real democracy works. We heard protesters change Salmeai Salmeai we are peaceful again and again.

We saw a military that would not fire bullets at the people they were sworn to protect. We saw doctors and nurses rushing into the streets to care for the people that were wounded. Volunteers checking protesters to make sure they were unarmed. We saw people of faith praying together and chanting – Muslims, Christians chanting “we are one.” And though we know the strains between faiths still divided too many in this world, no single event will close that chasm immediately. These scenes remind us that we need not be defined by our differences, we can be defined but the common humanity that we share.

And above all, we saw a new generation emerge. A generation that uses their own creativity and talent and technology to call for a government that represented their hopes and not their fears. A government that is responsive to their boundless aspirations. One Egyptian put it simply “most people have discovered in the last few days that they are worth something. And that can not be taken away from them anymore. Ever. This is power of human dignity. And it can never be denied. Egyptians have inspired us and they’ve done so by putting the lie of the idea that justice is best gained through violence. For in Egypt, it was the moral force of nonviolence, not terrorism, not mindless killing, but nonviolence moral force that bent the arc of history to moral justice once more.

And while all of the sights and sounds we heard were entirely Egyptian, we can’t help but hear the echoes of history. Echoes from Germans tearing down a wall, Indonesian students taking to the streets. Ghandi leading his people down the path of justice. As Martin Luther King said in celebrating the birth of a new nation in Ghana, while trying to perfect his own “There is something in the soul that cries out for freedom.” Those were the cries that came from Tarhir Square.

Authoritarian President Hosni Mubarak stepped down earlier today, the culmination of weeks of protests that spanned the Egyptian nation. At 3:00pm, the President of the United States, Barack Obama, plans to address his country and the world about the situation. You can watch the entire speech here:In the meantime, during, or afterwards,Pundit Presshas full coverage of the revolution in Egypt.

I do not know if the Islam Times is a reliable source. Therefore, these reports are, of now, unconfirmed. Either way, they are announcing that the King of Saudi Arabia has died.

According to their report, King Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz was confirmed in excellent health early yesterday. However, after having a heated phone conversation with President Obama, the 86-year-old King then had a sudden heart attack and passed away.

King Abdul-Aziz

Here is the passage from the Islam Times. It sounds biased, so take it with a grain of salt:

King Abdullah talked with Obama about the situation in Egypt over the phone yesterday. Obama and the King got into a heated debate about their opinions of what Hosni Mubarak should do. After the phone call sources stated that King Abdullah was furious and then suffered a sudden heart attack.

Doctors ran to his rescue but were unable to save him. He was pronounced dead, but his death was not reported due to the sensative conditions that exist in the region. The Saudi Arabian government will reject this claim; but the ball is in their court to prove that he is alive.

Update: The World Tribune is now reporting that King Abdul-Aziz has suffered a "major medical setback," but that he is not dead:

Western intelligence sources said Abdullah's medical condition has deteriorated sharply over the last few days. But they said he was not in danger of imminent death.

Saying that Egyptians had already waited "thirty years," and citing the chaos in Egypt, Egyptian Opposition Leader Mohamed ElBaradei stated today on Al Jazeera that Egyptians must wait at least "one year" for elections. Ironically, on the day that now-former President Mubarak stepped down amongst calls for democracy, the military of Egypt now holds the country while its opposition leader now says elections must wait.

Speaking live from Egypt with Al Jazeera, ElBaradei discussed the entirety of the protests and movements in Egypt. Touting Egyptians' grit and will power, ElBaradei was proud that Mubarak was forced to step down. However, when asked when elections would take place, the opposition leader stated that they would take at least "one year."

"We are not done," he stated. Though Mubarak had stepped down, "we have more demands;" the rest of the Mubarak regime "must go," he continued.

In a later interview, another opposition leader said that they expected "martial law to be announced soon" by the military. "We will see," he continued.

Under former-President Mubarak's plan, Egypt would have had elections his September. With these statements from ElBaradei, elections might not take place until well into 2012.

Here is video from Fox News in which Mubarak's resignation broke:

Despite ElBaradei's warning of "one year" until elections, with the resignation of authoritarian President Hosni Mubarak, thousands upon thousands of Egyptians have gathered in Tehrir Square to celebrate:

Breaking: Authoritarian President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt has resigned after 30 years of ruling Egypt. After weeks of protests that shook the nation and caught the attention of the world, Mubarak resigns amidst calls for a democratically elected government in the Middle East's largest nation.

Mubarak

The military of Egypt, respected by many in the country, claims that this is not a coup. It has promised to "safeguard the country" at this time. It is unknown what effect Mubarak's resignation will have on other authoritarian rulers in the region and possibly the world.

The protests in Egypt erupted after widespread revolts gripped Tunisia in mid-January.

Word is now coming in that Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak has resigned. This came after he traveled to Sharm-el-Sheik from the capital Cairo earlier today. Protests had grown after he announced yesterday that he would not step down.

The announcement was delivered by Egypt's vice president, Omar Suleiman, in a brief statement on state television. Mr. Mubarak delegated control of the country's affairs to Egypt's army, Mr. Suleiman said.

"Because of the current circumstances in the country the president, Hosni Mubarak, has decided to step down, and the higher command of the army is taking control of the country," he said.

Authoritarian President Hosni Mubarak stepped down earlier today, the culmination of weeks of protests that spanned the Egyptian nation. At 3:00pm, the President of the United States, Barack Obama, plans to address his country and the world about the situation. You can watch the entire speech here:

Pundit Press is proud to present interview number 21 in our ongoing series. Today we're interviewing Dan from High Plains Pundit. HPP is one of our favorite sites and we thank Dan for taking the time to answer our questions. Be sure to check out his site and bookmark!

1. When and why did you decide to start High Plains Pundit?

We launched High Plains Pundit in the summer of 2008. I have been involved in the news business for several years and decided it was time to step out on my own.

2. What's the best thing about running your site?

High Plains Pundit allows me a forum to pursue the issues and topics that are most important to me and my readers. I think we provide a good mix of conservative commentary and news stories. I really enjoy interacting with my readers through emails or chat forums. High Plains Pundit receives over 200 emails a day, and I take pride in the fact we personally answer each and everyone. It is always great to hear what the readers think, whether they agree or not.

3. Has President Obama been better or worse than you expected?

I think the President as performed about as expected. Many of us knew he was the most liberal Senator and he continued that trend when elected. For examble, with the ramming of Obamacare down the American's peoples throats. We have a President who is basically learning on the job, but not really learning anything at all. His liberal domestic policies have been proven to be a complete failure with the continued weakened economy. His policies have prolonged the current economic down turn, much like FDR's prolonged the Great Depression. Obama is certainly being exposed as very weak on foreign policy issues with the current situation in Egypt. For everyone that thinks President Obama is moving more to the center like Bill Clinton, listen to what he says and then watch what he actually does.

4. Who do you like for 2012?

I think Obama is guaranteed a second term if the Republicans keep throwing the likes of Huckabee, Ron Paul, Romney, and Gingrich out there. It is time to hand the party over to the likes of Chris Christie, Michelle Bachman, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, and Eric Cantor. I also like Herman Cain and Allen West. Sarah Palin could be a an actual contender in 2012 if she would actually take more of a stand on the issues and offered up some good ideas and solutions. Palin has shown that she can take a "Left" punch.

5. What is the most important under-reported story of recent years?

Without question the continuing violence along our border with Mexico. The drug lords have either killed or ran all the police off. The Mexican army is nowhere to be seen. Just think of the terror and oppression the Mexican citizens in these border towns are experiencing at the hands of the drug lords every single day. The violence has now started to appear in Mexico's tourist destinations as well. This is a very dangerous situation that the current occupent of the oval office simply does not get. If we do not protect our southern border soon, more of the violence will spill into our country and President Obama will have the blood of American citizens on his hands.

6. Anything else you'd like to add?

You guys are doing a great job at Pundit Press and it shows with the quality of work and growing readership of your site. Thanks for the interview and the opportunity to share my thoughts with the Pundit Press readers.

The situation in Egypt has taken yet another dramatic turn as Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak has reportedly fled the capital Cairo. According to sources, the leader went to Sharm-el-Sheik, a resort town near the Red Sea. FoxNews is reporting that Mubarak left via helicopter as new, larger crowds are forming.

Mubarak was in Sharm-el-Sheik several weeks ago. Not sure if he's trying to avoid being lynched or he's thinking about leaving the country.

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Embattled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak announced today that he will not step down, despite speculation that he would. Instead, he has declared that he will retain his seat as President, while handing over much of his administrative power to newly-named Vice President Omar Suleiman.

The following is part of Mubarak's speech but not the entire transcript.

"The children of Egypt, men and women." Mubarak started. He said that he is making a speech from the heart "from father to children" and that he takes pride in the protesters, that they are dreaming of a bright future. He said that "martyrs" blood "will not go down the drain." Following, that those who hurt Egyptian citizens will be punished.

This doesn't sound like he's resigning.

Mubarak

He said he felt the pain as they did. He's listening to their demands that will not be "waived." He is adamant to implement his promises. "This commitment stems from my firm commitment of the genuineness of your movement" and that they are "legitimate."

He says he can find "no embarrassment at all" from listening to the concerns of the people of Egypt. He says that he will not take orders from outside. "I announced in very plain...words... that I will not run in the coming Presidential election."

He says that he has taken an oath before God and the nation to "exit the current crisis." He says that he will implement reforms "hour by hour." The interests of the nation will be safeguarded by the armed forces that he will "exit the crisis."

Mubarak announced that he would cede power to Vice President Omar Suleiman but keep the office of President.

Update: Here is the full transcript:

PRESIDENT MUBARAK: In the name of Almighty God, ladies and gentlemen, sons and youth of Egypt, I address this speech to the youth of Egypt in Tahrir Square and (Egypt's extended land ?). I want to relay my message from bottom of my heart, the message from a father, that I am proud of you -- (break in translation) -- who calls for a better life and who is committed for this change and who dreams about the future and make -- and making it.

I can tell you before anything else that the blood of your martyrs will not be wasted. And I can affirm to you that I will not be easy in punishing the people who have caused you injuries. And I will also hold accountable all the people -- all the people who committed crimes against you, and with the utmost punishment and penalties, and deterrent penalties.

And I can tell you, to all the family members of these -- of these innocent victims, that I have been pained for their sake, exactly like I have been pained. And has broken my heart also, and has broken your hearts. I can tell you that I will respond to your demands and to your voices, and this is a commitment that is -- that cannot be reversed. I am also committed and determined to carry out my promises in all seriousness and in all credibility. And I'm really very concerned to implement this without any hesitation, in a positive fashion.

And based on the -- of your own intentions that are just and legitimate -- (inaudible) -- mistakes take place in (any ?) system and in any state. What is more important is to recognize them, and to redress them as soon as possible, and to hold (accountable ?) the people who committed them.

And -- (inaudible) -- that I as the president -- (inaudible) -- I don't find -- (inaudible) -- I have to respond to requests. I am --(inaudible) -- and I will not (submit ?) to any -- to any foreign interventions or dictations, regardless of their sources and regardless of their excuses and -- (inaudible).

My dear sons and my dear citizens, I have -- I have told and -- (inaudible) -- I will not nominate myself for the next presidential elections.

(Note: In the following section the feed provided President Mubarak's remarks and the interpreter's at similar volume, thus obscuring parts of the English translation.)

(Inaudible) -- what (I/they ?) have done to the country and --(inaudible) -- for more than -- (inaudible) -- years, during the years of peace and war. (Inaudible) -- (I'm committed ?) -- (inaudible) -- committed -- (inaudible) -- in a similar way -- (inaudible) -- responsibility in the -- (inaudible) -- constitution and the --(inaudible) -- so that the powers (will be transferred ?) to whoever the electorate chooses in the -- (inaudible) -- through fair and --(inaudible) -- elections -- (inaudible) -- as (regarded ?) by --(inaudible) -- the promise that I took upon myself -- (inaudible) -- homeland, and I will keep this promise (until we ?) take the Egyptians through the (safe ?) -- (inaudible).

I have also presented my own vision -- (inaudible) -- achieve what the people have called -- (inaudible) -- for -- (inaudible) -- constitutions will not be undermined, and in a sense that will achieve stability and achieve the demands of the people, but at the same time will also lay out a framework for the -- (inaudible) -- transition of the -- of the powers among all the sectors in the society and in all credibility and in all transparency.

I have presented this vision, and I'm committed, in order to get (out of ?) this difficult time, and to keep up with -- by the hour also to -- for all the people who are concerned about the Egyptian people and the country, so that we can transform this into some type of reality in harmony and in consensus that will -- that will be implemented also by our armed forces. We have started a national dialogue, a constructive one, (in ?) -- that brought together all the young people who called for this change and all the other political forces. And this dialogue has resulted in some kind of harmony in some view -- in the views, and the -- (inaudible) -- put our feet on the right track in order to get out of this crisis and to go on with this dialogue, so that we can move on from the general guidelines of what -- an agreement to some kind of a road map that is very clear and within a very specific timetable.

Day after day, that will be -- that will follow the track of peaceful transition until September.

This dialogue, this national dialogue, has also come out with the formation of the committee that will study the amendments of the constitution and what should be -- and the amendment -- and the legislative amendments also. And we also formed another, follow-up committee that will also be responsible for the implementation of what -- of the commitments that I have made upon myself to the people, and I am also very interested -- committed to form these two committees of some very well-known, well-reputed dignitaries and some jurisprudent people and some judicial figures.

In addition to that, I -- the fact that we have lost some martyrs in some tragic events recently that have pained our hearts and that have also pained the conscience of the (homeland ?) -- I have also ordered some people to start investigation and to get the result as soon as possible to the attorney general, so that he will take the appropriate procedures and legal measures and (deterrent ones ?).

I have also received the first reports yesterday with the constitutional amendments that are a high priority, given to me by the committee that I have formed by the legal people and to study these amendments. I have also responded to this report and to the (suggestions ?) made in this report.

And because I -- (inaudible) -- in accordance with Article 89, I have also asked for the amendment of six provisions, Article (76 ?), Article 77, Article 88, Article 93 and Article 189, in addition to the abolition of Article 179 from the constitution, and also assure that I'm ready to amend many other provisions that the committee sees appropriate, depending on the need and the -- (inaudible).

And these amendments of high priority target the terms for presidency and the conditions for presidency. And we have specified the terms of presidency in order to transfer powers and also to supervise the elections in order to have a fair and -- fair and (good?) elections. And it also focuses on the legal -- on the legal part in order to amend these conditions and amend the constitution, but --(inaudible) -- to abolish Article 179, I think should also achieve equilibrium between the protection of the land of the terrorism and to also respect the freedom, the civil freedoms of (all ?) so that we can overcome the -- to stop the emergency law, the (validity ?) of the emergency law and to get the conditions in order to lift the emergency law.

My dear citizens, the priority now is to restore the confidence among the Egyptians themselves and the confidence in our economy and our international reputation, and the confidence that the change that we have started will not be retracted. Egypt is going through difficult times right now, and we cannot do anything and cause damage to our economy and losses to the economy day after day. And this would cause to Egypt a lot of damage, and the people who have called for change will be the victims of these difficult times.

These difficult times is not about myself, about me, Hosni Mubarak, but it is about Egypt and its present and for its future. All Egyptians are in the same -- (word inaudible) -- right now, and we have to go (ahead ?) with the dialogue that we started recently in one team and not be (different ?) about it, and we have to be away from disputes and so that we can get out of this current crisis and so that we can restore confidence in our economy, and so that we can have -- (inaudible) -- people and for the people so that they can get on with their normal lives again.

I have been, like you, a young man, and when I learned the military honor of Egypt and my allegiance to the homeland and sacrifice to the (homeland ?). I have spent most of my life in defense of its sovereignty, and I have seen a lot of wars, and I have seen a lot of failures and a lot of victories. (Inaudible) -- times, and I have lived during the happiest days of my life when I raised the Egyptian flag over -- (word inaudible). And I have confronted death in Addis Ababa and in many other locations -- (inaudible).

I have never succumbed to any international pressure or dictation. I have preserved my dignity and I have preserved the peace for Egypt, and I have worked hard for a renaissance, and I have never tried to have more authority. And I think that the majority of the people here know very well who is Mubarak. And I think it hurts my heart when I see and I hear from my own colleagues and my own -- (inaudible). But I know the junction that we are facing right now, but I am fully confident that Egypt will pass this difficult time. But we are also -- we have also to take the highest interest of Egypt and that Egypt should be -- (inaudible) -- should be the first priority over any other consideration.

I have delegated the vice president in -- delegated the vice president to carry out a lot of powers. And I'm very -- (inaudible) -- that Egypt will come out of this crisis and will not break its will and the the will of its people, and will rise on its feet again and stand up on its feet in all loyalty of its people, and will also get out of these difficult times.

We will prove -- we Egyptians will prove our ability and capacity to respond to all the demands, but through dialogues. And we will prove that we are not servants to anyone and will not be dictated by anyone, and that no will take the decisions for us, except for the -- (inaudible) -- and the demands of the people. We will prove that, and the determination -- Egyptian determination and in the coherence and duty of the people, and also in the reputation and the dignity and identity and the unique identity of Egypt, because this identity is the essence of our existence for over -- for more than 7,000 years.

This spirit will live in us as long as Egypt and the people of Egypt are still here. This spirit will live in us. It will live in every one of us, among the farmers and among the educated and cultured people. It will stay in the hearts of all the young people and the old people also, in the Copt and the Muslim, the consciences and the hearts of people who have not even been born yet.

I am telling you again that I have lived for this homeland and I am preserving its integrity. And Egypt will always remain -- the interests of Egypt will be above everyone else. It will keep on like that until I deliver this -- (inaudible) -- and the responsibility and the duties I have started the beginning and I will carry out until the end. This is the end, but I will be -- it will be my decision. I will not leave and will also be -- (inaudible) -- and we will be always dignified people until the very end, and we'll be -- we'll raise our heads. And we'll be always dignified.

May God preserve Egypt as a safe haven, and may its people find the right path. And may God, may peace be upon thee.

With word that Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak may step down later tonight there is new speculation on what will happen next in the country. The announcement of resigning came as unexpected just one day before large new protests were planned.

There's a report circulating from BBC Arabic that Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak fled the country in the wake of new protests. This comes as he is expected to resign later today. The planned speech may be a recording.

EGYPT: MUBARAK HAS ALREADY LEFT COUNTRY - REPORT

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has reportedly already left the country, and his speech scheduled for the night of Feb. 10 has been pre-recorded, BBC Arabic reported. Some reports indicate Mubarak will speak within two hours, while other unconfirmed reports say he left the country as early as yesterday.

Unfortunately, Pundit Press itself does not have a live feed of President Mubarak's speech. In case you think this is an old article, the date is February 10, 2011. If you want to watch the speech live on the internet, here are two news-organizations that are covering it: